Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Electric Universe (book)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-23 08:18Z 

The Electric Universe (book)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Retroactive objection to proposed deletion; reason for proposed deletion was "Non-notable" with no further explanation. AfD nomination is pro-forma following undeletion; nominator has no opinion. ➥the Epopt 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - no evidence of notability; only external sources are the book itself and the author's own website. Delete unless further external sources can be added to demonstrate notability. Walton monarchist89 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The content has been changed with several internal links, making it an comprehensive overview of the Astrophysic with the electric point of view. Therefore it belongs into the Astrophysics category and should not be deleted. Thanx --Dkoerti 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong delete This is an attempt to try again to get an article on the concept Electric Universe, an extremely dubious example of pseudo science, deleted here repeatedly in several different formats. Cf. Talk:Electric universe (concept)/Archive. The remaining article in WP is Electric_Enceladus, a good candidate for deletion, which I have temporarily recategorized from Astrophysics to Pseudoscience. The article at hand is devoted  to 2 reviews of the book, quoted in full, and to a detailed exposition of the theory--which has already been removed repeatedly. extreme length.
 * No, this book has nothing to do with the Electric Universe (Concept) article. --84.9.191.165 12:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence that anyone but the two reviewers has ever read the book, and the reliance of the article on two COI web sites. it isnt even N as pseudoscience. Even if it were, the article here would need to be stubbified to remove unsourced material. DGG 06:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there are substanial references in the article and some demonstrations of notability. NBeale 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable and misleading GB 05:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.